Proposed: Science uses circular logic too.

[Lisa0315]

I got started with this in another thread, but I would be interested in hearing from the scientists and philosphers out there.

Can anything be proven? Doesn't science also use circular logic to prove itself?

Now, please be gentle with me. I am no scientist, and I am not about to argue science. This is just a philosophical question only.

If Christians cannot prove the Bible is true, then, how does science prove anything either? Cannot all science be refuted using the same thought process that religion is refuted? Do we KNOW anything? Or is EVERYTHIHNG a belief?

 

[JesusDisciple]

Great post.

Even scientists have to have faith with certain elements of their beliefs. Not everything can be reproduced in a lab environment to prove theories. Evolution cannot be reproduced. We can see adaptation, or micro-evolution, but we don't see organisms wholly changing into other species before our very eyes.
Many scientists believe everything came from nothing. How can that be? They are baffled at the starting point. Thus, they have to have faith, just as some of us Christians have faith that God created Adam, Eve and the Earth as Genesis literally says.
Thus we all have faith in something, it just may not be the same things.

 

[scootrose]

i would agree with Jesus Disciple, adding only that the hypocrisy of evolutionists can be demonstrated very clearly in the framing of current debates like (in my home state of MO at least) that of teaching the idea of Intelligent Design alongside evolution. the evolutionists will tell you that religion is a belief system, whereas evolution is science. this argument was placed at the beginning of my anthropology textbook. it was basically there to prevent in-class evolution debates with the assertion that beliefs (ie - creationism) and science (ie - evolution) should not be compared. this is all, of course, a myth. evolution and creationism are both belief systems. despite my best efforts i have not been able to transport myself to the beginning of time and therefore could not observe the actual circumstances. neither one is observable science, just reasonable belief.

Do we KNOW anything? Or is EVERYTHIHNG a belief?

in my opinion, all we can ever do is believe, because there is no way for limited human experience and cognizance to absolutely know anything. technically i know the grand canyon is in Arizona, but maybe everyone on earth has been lying to me and that isn't true - so at best i absolutely believe it to be fact. the things we say we know are actually things we 99% believe, but can never definitively know. that does not mean i believe in absolute truth. i do, but i believe that humans are incapable of truly grasping truth in this life.

in terms of proving things...well, i think we can prove that Christ is the fulfillment of various Old Testament prophecies, through archaeology we can prove that much of the Old Testament history must be accurate, etc etc. the same way we prove that helium is lighter than air and texas is north of mexico - we use the observable data we have and draw a reasonable conclusion.

 

[gitamerah]

Doesn't science also use circular logic to prove itself?

Actually, no, it doesn't. This is the misconception that many people have about evolution in that it uses circular logic (especially with the fossil in the rock strata argument... which is not how it was actually done in geology... I know this because I'm an ex-geologist myself)

What science did use are theories that have yet to be proven. They try to prove that evolution is true by presenting yet another theory that still hasn't been proven.

What it means is that... science uses unreliable evidence to support their theory. That is why you get so many new theories nowadays that are used to support the previous ones that they have already spouted out.

What I found, during my days as a geologist, was that a lot of it was simply guesswork. i.e: A and B look similar, therefore, they're related... which is not always the case.

 

[Beholdthelamb]

This is probably oversimplifying the topic, but let me offer my own little insight into this.



If all knowledge merely consists of fallible beliefs, then this “fact” must also be a fallible belief. In other words, if one doesn’t think he can know anything for certain, how can he know he doesn’t know anything for certain?



In short, if truth is subjective, we should never have any way of finding out that it is subjective.



The only way to break the circle is to assume that there is objective truth and that this truth does not go in circles. Yes, that is an assumption, but it’s not a risky assumption. It is an assumption which must be taken as a basic axiom of truth. Otherwise, life is nothing more then a cruel experiment on mankind.



This assumption of truth affects both religious and scientific views. We assume that people are rational creatures. At least you do. Otherwise you wouldn’t have asked this question. You also assume that rationality is a good thing. Again, you would not have asked if thought rationality was evil.



In short, there are some things we do know, and there are some things we believe. Both are based on what I would call an assumption of necessity. Life will never make sense if we look at everything as circles. In fact, any so-called knowledge of belief that does go in circles should be called into question immediately.

 

[keyarch]

...Can anything be proven? Doesn't science also use circular logic to prove itself? ... Do we KNOW anything? Or is EVERYTHIHNG a belief?

If there is "time" there is "history" and an absolute truth about that history. We may percieve it differently, but it is what it was.

I suppose if there were time travel, then history could be changed and everything in our reality could be altered. But, while I love time travel movies, I don't think it's possible.

Who cares if life is all one big illusion? If it is, that's all we're given to deal with and if we don't accept it as real, then we'll just go crazy. We all need to have 'faith' in certain things to lead a normal life. After that, it's a choice of what to have faith IN. This faith is built on our experiences about truth and reality.

I accept that my parents were actually my biological parents without needing to do a DNA test on them. I came to that faith based on other things in my life. I'd rather live my life believing this than demanding that they do a test before I give them my love.

Regarding “science”, I think it first needs to be established what branch of science that is being referred to. ‘Operational Science’ is something that can be reasonably relied on based on assumptions that can be tested, but still may not be absolute fact. ‘Historical and Origins Science’ on the other hand cannot be tested and can only be evaluated based on probability of the evidence at hand. Many assumptions have to be made that cannot be tested because they involve history and we were not there. We have to use more of a forensic approach which could have errors. With Historical and Origins science we have to be more tentative in our faith of the results, especially when the scientific community itself says that “scientific knowledge is provisional and capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered”.

I think there is more danger not having faith in anything out of fear of being wrong than to place your faith in what you know to be true, even if it means changing your mind about what is true later. It may have eternal ramifications!

 

[Lisa0315]

If there is "time" there is "history" and an absolute truth about that history. We may percieve it differently, but it is what it was.

I suppose if there were time travel, then history could be changed and everything in our reality could be altered. But, while I love time travel movies, I don't think it's possible.

Who cares if life is all one big illusion? If it is, that's all we're given to deal with and if we don't accept it as real, then we'll just go crazy. We all need to have 'faith' in certain things to lead a normal life. After that, it's a choice of what to have faith IN. This faith is built on our experiences about truth and reality.

I accept that my parents were actually my biological parents without needing to do a DNA test on them. I came to that faith based on other things in my life. I'd rather live my life believing this than demanding that they do a test before I give them my love.

Regarding “science”, I think it first needs to be established what branch of science that is being referred to. ‘Operational Science’ is something that can be reasonably relied on based on assumptions that can be tested, but still may not be absolute fact. ‘Historical and Origins Science’ on the other hand cannot be tested and can only be evaluated based on probability of the evidence at hand. Many assumptions have to be made that cannot be tested because they involve history and we were not there. We have to use more of a forensic approach which could have errors. With Historical and Origins science we have to be more tentative in our faith of the results, especially when the scientific community itself says that “scientific knowledge is provisional and capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered”.

I think there is more danger not having faith in anything out of fear of being wrong than to place your faith in what you know to be true, even if it means changing your mind about what is true later. It may have eternal ramifications!

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I honestly do not have anything to add to this discussion even though I am the OP. I have been reading the responses though and will comment if anyone has a question. I will say this: When I said science, I was referring to origins science more than anything else.

 

[KerrMetric]

I got started with this in another thread, but I would be interested in hearing from the scientists and philosphers out there.

Can anything be proven? Doesn't science also use circular logic to prove itself?

Now, please be gentle with me. I am no scientist, and I am not about to argue science. This is just a philosophical question only.

If Christians cannot prove the Bible is true, then, how does science prove anything either? Cannot all science be refuted using the same thought process that religion is refuted? Do we KNOW anything? Or is EVERYTHIHNG a belief?

Science never proves anything, that is for courts of law or mathematics. The way science operates is to falsify not to prove.

There is also no such thing as operational science or origins science. These are meaningless terms meant to deceive.

 

[keyarch]

Science never proves anything, that is for courts of law or mathematics. The way science operates is to falsify not to prove.

There is also no such thing as operational science or origins science. These are meaningless terms meant to deceive.

Is this a "scientific" falsification here, or are you trying to prove something by making an absolute statement? Its odd when I hear Phd scientists talk about the different types of science if there are no such distinctions.

 

[mark kennedy]

I got started with this in another thread, but I would be interested in hearing from the scientists and philosphers out there.

I consider myself a philosopher so let's role.

Can anything be proven? Doesn't science also use circular logic to prove itself?

Yes of course somethings can be proven. Science is all about what works but there are presumptions that walk in circles like single common ancestory.

Now, please be gentle with me. I am no scientist, and I am not about to argue science. This is just a philosophical question only.

Dear one, philosophers are far more brutal the scientists. Don't worry though, you are among friends here.

If Christians cannot prove the Bible is true, then, how does science prove anything either? Cannot all science be refuted using the same thought process that religion is refuted? Do we KNOW anything? Or is EVERYTHIHNG a belief?

Ok, for one thing parts of religion are science, theology is a science, believe it or not. There are things that can be known for certain like God's eternal attributes and your relationship with God through Christ. I'm going to step down off my soapbox now and try to calm down.